What religion would you most likely believe if you'd been born in Saudi Arabia? What about if you'd been born in India? Do you believe in the same god your parents do? Have you read the religious texts of other religions? Have you been to centers of worship? Have you spent as much time in them as you have your own? Enough to adequately compare their truth claims to your own?
Like most Americans, I grew up believing in a rather robust and what I now consider to be a Disney-esque view of Free Will. I believed that we freely chose our actions, our beliefs, who we are and where we were going.
My studies in history, theology and the rest began to challenge these views. Now, obviously, if I had been born on the American continent in the 1300s, I couldn't have been a Christian. This goes without saying, but what we often ignore is that almost all of us believe about God more or less whatever our parents believed, maybe with some slight variations. Are we so sure that we choose our religion? Are we so sure that the Virgin Birth makes sense but Golden Tablets don't?
Never mind that. Instead, consider this. Did you choose your primary language? Did you choose your parents? Your genetic make-up? Did you choose your innate intellectual or emotional intelligence? Did you choose your first grade teacher? Your first grade classmates?
Okay. Maybe not. But you still chose WHO YOU ARE, didn't you? You've had free will since... since when? Did you have free will when you were in the womb? What about day one out of the womb? I think most of us would say that we did not have free will in the womb or the first day out of it, but those of us who are parents will acknowledge that babies have personalities on their first day out of the womb. Mothers will say that babies have personalities when they're in the womb. And if this is true, then we have personalities before we have free will. That is to say that we are making choices that cause the interactions that lead to learning that cause us to grow into who we will be at the point of our next decisions... and we're doing this before we have what we might call free will.
And this leads us to a problem that we don't generally consider when we think about free will. We don't choose the chooser. I didn't choose to be Jon Noble Day 1. But Jon Noble Day 1 lived a life of interactions that led to Jon Noble Day 2. Jon Noble Day one neither chose to be Jon Noble Day 1 nor chose the participants who were present for Day 1, nor the scenes of Day 1, nor even what Jon Noble Day 1 was and wasn't aware of...
And this creates a problem. Because not only do we not choose the religious perspective of our parents, we don't choose whether or not we're likely to be the sort of people who are willing to investigate outside of that perspective should that perspective be the incorrect one.
But let me come at this from another angle. All of our choices are decisions made at particular points in time. Those decisions derive from who we were in those particular moments and what we were aware of at the specific decision point. That is to say that faced with a similar situation tomorrow as today, I might not be inclined to make the same decision because I might not be the same person in a way that might affect my decision. Change one variable about me, about my awareness, about whatever and the outcome potentially changes in a way that looks more like a billiards table than it does 'freedom.'
And when we look it it like this, the objections people usually raise about our decision not being predictable or us not making the same decisions today as yesterday vanish. Of course, we don't make the same decisions today as yesterday. The situations aren't identical and even if they are, we aren't. And of course, it's not predictable. Neither is the weather, really. I don't suspect anyone is attributing the weather's unpredictability to free will.
To put it plainly, being determines doing and everything is. It's not that I couldn't choose otherwise, it's that me being me means that I wouldn't. For me to choose something different would mean that something about me or the situation or my awareness of it would have to be different from what it is. Why else would I be inclined to choose other than what I am choosing. And this is as true of frogs as it is of humans. Might it not also be true of Gods? Are Gods not whatever Gods are with whatever goals, awareness, etc. that those Gods have? Who is to say, really?
And it was these thoughts that led me to Determinism and to question the justice of an idea like hell.
Wednesday 22 November 2023
How I Became A Humanist: Determinism and Hell
Tuesday 21 November 2023
Communion: We Are What We Eat
When we share in communion, we share in the Body and Blood of Christ. We consume the Sacrifice reflects who we are as a community even as our sharing of it shapes the community.
When we commune together in this way, we are making a declaration to each other. "We are the Body of Christ." This is something Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14. All of us together, sharing communion are united in this Body.
This symbolism is powerful. We consume the sacrifice. At the same time, we are the Sacrifice resurrected. This imagery is pointed to throughout the New Testament, but is often lost on us. When we share the Sacrifice together we are declaring that together we are the Resurrected Body of Christ. Paul sees us as Christ's hands, feet and so on. We're like Voltron or the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. We're a more powerful force for good when we're united. But the importance of the symbolism goes beyond unity to communal behavior.
In this act we are claiming to be Christ's Body. We must therefore ask whether or not our Body is doing the thing that Christ's Body did? This question leads us back to the original post in this series in which I suggested that Communion is time to reflect on more than just the death and resurrection of Jesus - we should also focus on the his life.
What did Jesus do with his body? He used it to feed the sick. He used it to heal people both physically and emotionally. He loved. He forgave. And he knew how to have a good time! Is that what our Body does? Are these the things that define our Body? And if not, what should be done to correct this? Communion is a good time to ask that question too.
Wednesday 27 September 2023
The Problem with Purity, Part 2: How Pressure for Sexual Purity is Abusive (A Male Perspective)
I might have budded a little earlier than children. In any case, I remember having my first little crush when I was in preschool. I could have told you by then that I thought girls were super pretty. Awkward as I was, I had my first kiss when I was 6 years old. By 8, I was definitely fantasizing about sex, though I didn't quite understand the process just yet. I KNEW in my inner most being (or something like that) that I wanted to see women naked. I still do.
So, imagine my surprise when my minister informed me that imagining seeing women naked if you weren't already married to them was a terrible sin, that it made God very unhappy and that the most we were allowed to fantasize about before marriage was kissing someone we weren't married to. I WAS DEVASTED.
To be honest, I don't recall exactly how I felt in that moment, but this sort of message was sent over and over again. Sexual thoughts crimes were punishable by eternal damnation and I was guilty. I wanted so badly to have a sexually pure mind, but those ladies and their sexy butts - I just couldn't get them out of my head.
I make light of it now, but honestly, up until my mid-twenties and maybe until I became an Atheist, I was absolutely tortured by my competing desires to be a good Christian and my natural desire to mate. I was disgusted with myself. I'd find myself feeling incredibly horny and as soon as the climax came, I'd feel immediate horrified regret. I'd failed and hurt my Savior! How could I be so unfaithful to God. How could I shit on my faith?!? I made resolutions every day. And every day I broke them, usually more than once. If I had been diligent enough to count every 'wicked' thought I'd had... I definitely sinned several times every waking hour. Anyway, more than once, I cried myself to sleep. More than once, I confessed my shame publicly. I just wanted to be pure! And this came with consequences not only for me.
It took me a long time after marriage to learn to enjoy sex. I feel like, even now, I don't enjoy it as well as I would had I not been traumatized by my desire for moral purity.
Looking back, it's bad enough that I felt so much shame for feelings that are natural for all animals to have, and without which we would not procreate. I shouldn't have spent so much time feeling so much guilt and so much shame for having been born human. What's worse is that it had a negative effect on my marriage and my various romantic partners over the years. I was so ashamed of my desire, that in my early years of marriage it was difficult for me spend time thinking about my partners needs, because even thinking about my own needs was shameful. The truth is, I didn't think about my own needs. Instead, I thought about the guilt I was carrying and the cause of it.
And while this never happened to me, one can look at societies where this kind of guilt is common. In these societies and communities, men learn to hate women. They hate women because the desire they have for women's bodies make them feel guilty. And then, their attitude often makes women feel guilty for having bodies. The schizophrenic attitude this causes men to have towards women can lead while societies to send women the message both that they must be beautiful and show it and also that they are shameful for doing so. This is an absurd and harmful burden for both women and men to bare - it's antihuman and not the best way to deal with the complexities of sexual desire.
And this is just one example of how purity is corrosive.
Monday 4 September 2023
The Problem with Purity, Part 1: It's Inherently Divisive and Distracts from Common Goals
I grew up in the Churches of Christ, where we believed in something called Patternism. What this meant was that God wanted our churches to be patterned off of the Christian churches that existed in the first century. The assumption was that the first century Christians were given specific instructions on how to worship God and organize their churches, that these instructions could be found in the New Testament and that deviating from them would lead a congregation and its members away from being members of God's true church, the Churches of Christ. And it was believed that any group that didn't both worship correctly and organize its church polity correctly was most likely destined to hell.
What did that mean for us? Well, for starters it meant singing our worship songs without instruments and sharing communion (The Eucharist) every Sunday. We we taught that churches that didn't do this loved entertainment and convenience more than they loved Jesus and that would be condemned. We were taught that believers needed to be fully immersed during baptism and that the baptism wasn't just a sign of faith, but that it was for the remission of sins. If it didn't happen this way, it didn't count. This led to people getting rebaptized because they'd been baptized for the wrong reasons or because, perhaps, an elbow hadn't gone under water - How embarrassing would it be find yourself in heaven when you're right elbow is in hell??? Weird, right?
, e
But the Patternist obsession got weirder from there. The more conservatively minded among us believed that anything not specifically dictated in scripture should be avoided. So, if the New Testament didn't mention having a fellowship hall, there there shouldn't be a fellowship hall. If it didn't mention using a projector then we weren't supposed to use a projector. Since the first century Christians used one cup during communion, people who used a variety of tiny cups for sanitations sake might be destined to hell, etc. Our churches divided endlessly over this nonsense because...
One of the problems with purity is that it's completely impossible to be 100% consistent. In our churches, we almost never asked if it was okay to use a church building, even though both the New Testament and church history indicate that the earliest Christians worshipped in homes. Most of our churches had pulpit ministers, even youth ministers, even though these things did not exist in 1st Century. We had hymnals, microphones.... Need I go on? The truth is that each particular local church decided what was central to the 1st Century pattern and what wasn't.
And that's how it always is with purity. Those groups that are tend to focus on ideological purity necessarily bend towards infighting and self-cannibalization especially during moments when they aren't focused on an outsider, even less pure, adversary. The reason for this isn't because some members of the group are less pure than others, but because ideological standards of purity are necessarily subjective. Take the contemporary fight between some advocates of transgendered rights and some advocates of women in sports. Should a transgendered woman be allowed to participate in women's sports? I'm not here to offer an opinion, just to say that when ideological purity is valued more than conversation and overall progress, you're going to have people who used to be on the same side condemning each other as if the two groups had little to nothing in common.
I used a rift within the feminist movement, because I expect most of my readers will be sympathetic to the movement as whole and I wanted to demonstrate that groups whose mission we generally agree with can start having problems once purity of ideology becomes a a dominant focus within a group or movement.
We can see more radical versions of this with groups that probably more obviously come to mind. You'd think that the Taliban and ISIS would get along. They don't. ISIS thinks the Taliban is too liberal.... The Leninists banned a number of socialist groups from operating in Russia during the revolution, because they viewed those groups as not being revolutionary enough - weirdly, the revolution probably would have been a lot more successful in the long-term if they'd brought those people in and made it work (Also, how it often goes). Imagine a world where ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban get along. That wouldn't be great for the world, but it would help them forward their vision. Puritans cut off their nose to spite their face.
To go back to my point on Feminism. I think it's clear to see that the Feminist movement is suffering a somewhat successful onslaught from the right at the moment. How successful, time will tell - I'm hoping that it won't be too successful. To whatever degree the neo-traditionalists (my own term) win out, the current state of ideological puritanism among many Feminists will certainly be a huge contributor. Afterall, it's not as though the US is less Feminist than it was 20 years ago. Quite to the contrary - the neo-traditionalists have an abundance of female leadership. But, the Feminists movement is more fractured than it was 20 years ago and that leaves it vulnerable. It little less ideological purity and a little more cooperation would go a long way in handing the Feminist movement important victories.
If we want to move any relationship, group, cause, or municipality forward towards a shared goal, we should not be so focused on purity that we are unable to work alongside people who mostly agree with us. Obsessing over ideological purity makes such cooperate difficult. And that's our first problem with purity.
Sunday 27 August 2023
A New Way to be Adam
(All Bible Quotes are from NRSV unless otherwise noted)
American Churches of Christ are experiencing an identity crisis. Our numbers are dwindling. Churches are closing their doors. Members are scrambling, some to other churches, others to sand bag the shores of our eroding fellowship. People are leaving in droves, and those who remain, remain divided.
Questions about our future are being raised, Can the Churches of Christ survive in the 21st Century? Should we return to our hair-spitting ways? We are nearly bald as it is. Should we imitate the Baptists? The Pentecostals? The Catholics? Perhaps we can compromise by combining the best or most popular Christian movements of our generation. While some of these options might seem preferable, all are little more than Elmer’s Glue for a bursting dam. They will not unite old and young, rich and poor, black and white, or reinvigorate our lost missionary zeal. Without divine intervention, our movement is doomed.
Some solutions may lie in remodeling the fixtures of our polity, but updating the foundation of our polity with new wooden planks will only create more rotten wood for future generations to deal with. We must create a more solid foundation. Toward that end, I propose that Romans 5:12-21 will provide a paradigm from which to overcome our division across racial, gender, and economic lines, provide a meaningful impetus for ecumenical dialogues that go beyond the casual ‘tolerance and acceptance’ rhetoric typically peddled, give us focus, and provide a foundation for evangelism that is both theologically sound and attractive.
The Background of Romans
In order to understand Romans 5:12-21 it is necessary to understand what role is plays if fulfilling Paul’s purpose for Romans. So, a brief synopsis of the assumed reasons for Romans will be presented here.
Romans is an epistle, not a compendium of Pauline theology. Paul wrote the letter to support his mission to Spain, and to address division between Jewish and Gentile sects in the Roman church.
Part of the division was caused, or perhaps amplified by the departure of the Jews during their banishment from Rome under Claudius’ in A.D. 49 and their subsequent return upon Claudius’ death in A.D 54. Paul seems to have met some Roman Jews during that time who are mentioned as Christians in Rome in chapter 16 of the letter. It is theorized that when the Jews left, the Gentile Christians took up leadership in the church, and that the worship of the church changed to fit the Gentile culture. It is clear from chapter 16 that diversity and tension among the Jewish and gentile Christians existed in Rome. As is common, the cultural differences probably also affected, or were at least interpreted to be doctrinal.
Through the letter Paul identifies with both the Jews and the gentiles, while at the same time trying to eliminate the dividing distinctions between them. He instructs the Gentiles to appreciated and welcome the Jews. He tells the Jews to accept the Gentiles. Paul tries to remove misunderstandings about his Gospel, and unify Jewish and gentile identity under Christ.
A Brief Synopsis of the Epistle
Paul’s concern for the division between the Jews and the gentiles is evident from the beginning. He opens by affirming Jesus is the son of David who was promised through the “prophets in his holy scriptures (Rom. 1:2-4). Romans is one of only two letters in which Paul mentions Jesus as a descendant of David, and the only letter in which it is an opening theme. The prophets are not mentioned in other Pauline texts aside from a reference concerning their persecution, and while the scriptures are mentioned as prophesying about Jesus, the issue is never part of the opening address.
His concern for the gentiles follows immediately. The same promise and grace which made Jesus Lord gave Paul the apostleship to “bring about the faith of obedience” among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name” (Rom. 1:1-5).
This is not the only time Paul alternates references between Jews and Gentiles. The pattern continues throughout the first portion of the book. “Paul discusses Jews in 1:16, 2:19, 10, 17, 28, 29, 3:1, 9, 29) and gentiles in (1:5, 13, 2:14, 24, 3:29, 4:17, 18).” Paul alternates between the two groups intentionally. By weaving his concern and his message for the divided peoples together, he hold the attention of each group as the letter is being read aloud. The effect is that the groups are pulled together during the reading. Paul is not an amateur rhetorician. The organization of the letter is intended to set a mood which is conducive to his purpose.
In 1:18-3:20 Paul argues that all humanity, Jew or Gentile is in need of God’s grace. Salvation comes through grace alone, and grace comes through faith. He begins this argument by using a common Jewish polemic against the gentiles (1:18-1:32). The section paints a dark picture of humanity’s intentional rejection of God and God’s punishment by handing humanity over to degradation.
This section is notable for another reason. Wright assumes that Paul is referencing Adam in Romans 1.18. Indeed the whole section is redolent of creation narrative language: “Ever since creation…. things he has made.” (1:20). 1:18-23 feels like a Picasso painting of the Genesis creation narrative. The illusion does not end there. 1:25 looks like the fall. “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie…” when they believed that God was holding them back from being more like God than they already were (Gen. 3:1-8). They “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,” when they did what the serpent told them to do (Gen. 3:1-8). Paul continues the story with the imagery of the sin, which preceded the flood, and the natural consequences of that sin—death, (Rom. 1:26-32).
The result of the rejecting God came with dire consequences, besides death. Their bodies were degraded. In one sense the term is used to convey the repugnance of their base behavior. However, the repetition of the term in the context of creation language in a passage, which precedes a section largely concerned with regaining what Adam lost, demands further probing.
Jewish contemporaries of Paul, and rabbis who followed centuries later believed that Adam had special abilities and authority combined with glorious beauty before the he sinned. He was called a king, and a priest. When he sinned, he and all of humanity lost them. His beauty was described in awesome often vivid terms to demonstrate just how far humanity had fallen on his account. All humanity’s miseries, death, sadness and the like were results of Adam’s sin. Adam’s folly had universally devastating implications. Those who believed this were looking for a coming Messiah who they expected to “restore all creation to a pre-fall state.” Wedderburn, Davies and many others believe Paul is gazing through a similar lens. Considering the evidence, it likely that they are correct.
Many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers have this view of Adam which is reflected in their views of the resurrection. It would be surprising for them to have adopted this without the help of Jewish Christians Jewish teacher among them who had believed the same thing before entering the Christian community. Paul was likely one of those teachers. It is likely that Paul was one of those teachers. However, one need travel that route to gather that Paul shared the rabbis view of Adam, nor to gather that it affected his view of Christ. Romans 8:3 says that Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The verse almost sounds Gnostic, but it cannot be, because Paul claimed at the beginning of the letter that Jesus was descended from David. Rather, it suggests that Christ looked like Fallen people, even though his body was superior to theirs. The degradation that Paul is talking about both involves and is caused by sin, but has a whole array of affects on the human race.
The attack in the first chapter does serve as an indictment against pagan culture, but there is a reason that Paul amplifies creation language and does not mention the gentiles by name in this section. He is deliberately excluding no one, so as to include every one, because as he will argue later, all are enslaved in sin. Paul intentionally nuances the story with creation language so as to make his case later.
In chapter two, Paul rejects the assumption that Jews have somehow gotten off the hook. Even though the Jews teach against the aforementioned evil deeds, they do them too. They have pride in their identification with a Torah that they do not follow (2:1-24). Paul makes it clear that following Torah matters. Cultural identification with it is meaningless. So, whether or not one is circumcised does not affect their being a Jew (2:24-29). Paul has changed the definition of Jewishness from an outward symbol and to an inner-quality that works itself out in moral action. He has diminished the importance of the purity code.
Paul clarifies these statements early in chapter three. He is not saying that being a Jew is meaningless, or that God has revoked his covenant with the Jews. Everything about being Jewish is special, even circumcision. In spite of its goodness, Judaism have not solved the problem of sin’s power over humanity. The problem stems back to creation. All people, both Jews and Greeks, are helpless against the power of sin (3:1-20).
“In 3:21-4:25 Paul argues that God’s righteousness, like his wrath (1:18-3:20), is revealed to all peoples, overcoming the power of sin.” Paul brings the audience’s attention back to the prophets’ promises. The prophets prophesied that the solution to the problem of sin would come from outside the law to people both to both Jews and gentiles (3:21-26). The appeal to the prophets serves to prove that it was God’s intention for something other than Torah to become the center of salvation. Salvation is not just for the Jews. It is for all people. Paul makes faith in Christ the rallying point for those who want to stand righteous with God (3:21-26).
During this move, Paul appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham received grace based on faith. He was considered righteous by God before he obeyed Torah. Therefore he is the father of all who believe (4:1-24). Indeed he did. Paul appeals to something more ancient than the law to support his argument in much the same way that the Hebrew writer did when supporting Christ’s priesthood, and in the same way Paul will argue for the common ancestry and predicament of all people in chapter 5.
Chapters 5-8
5:1-21 is both the conclusion of 1:18-5:21 and the beginning of 5-8. It looks back at justification. Christ’s sacrifice has brought forgiveness. It looks forward toward the eschatological glory. Through Christ we are more than conquers (Rom. 8:28-39).
5:1-11 demonstrates two sides to Paul’s soteriology, the “already” and the “not yet.” God’s grace and forgiveness have already been bestowed, but the community is still waiting for salvation. “Now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God,” (Rom. 5:9). The wrath of God is not referring specifically to hell. It is referring back to the wrath of God in 1:18-32, in which God gave them up to degradation. However, it seems likely that Paul is intentionally using a broad term to include hell. Paul asks in Romans 6:1 whether or not Christians should continue to sin since the condemnation associated with sin has passed. The question seems unintelligible without there being some punishment other than being handed over to more sin. In any case, the main point is that humans will be rescued from their propensity to sin. This is what Paul means when he says that we will be saved through his life, (Rom. 5:10).
Romans 5:12-21
In Romans 5:12-21 Paul paints a stark contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam represents sinful humanity. Jesus represents rescued humanity. Adam disobeyed God and all humanity followed. Jesus obeyed God and brought reconciliation and freedom. The two men represent opposite sides of sin and grace, of enslavement and freedom, of life and death. Indeed, the “whole history of humanity is summed up in the two epochs of Adam and Christ.
The passage raises a series of issues, not the least of which concerns original sin. Commentators go back and forth on how much a doctrine of original sin can be extracted from this passage. Both Scroggs and Dunn doubt that it can. They believe, like many others that it is unlikely that had a highly developed view pertaining to Original sin. To say that Paul had the same view of sin as much later theologians is probably anachronistic. To deny that he must have believed something similar makes it difficult to understand how he could make the argument that he does.
A number of scholars, whether they agree with the doctrine of original sin or not, suggest that the doctrine is not what really concerns Paul in these passages. They say that Paul is concerned with the difference between sin and grace. It is true that sin and grace are central to the argument, but sin and grace are not being argued in isolation. Paul has not dropped the Jew/ Gentile issue only to pick up the again later in the letter, as some scholars have suggested. As Kaylor rightly asserts, 5:12-21 is specifically concerned with relations between Jews and gentiles. Paul has spent too much time tracing universal human slavery to sin back to creation for the implications to be dismissed. Sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12). This is not superfluous or secondary to Paul’s argument. It is central.
There should be little doubt that Paul is arguing that Adam some how subsumed humanity, and that before Christ all humanity was “in Adam.” Paul uses this exact wording in 1 Corinthians 15:22 “ωσπερ γαρ εν τω αδαμ παντες αποθνησκουσιν ουτως και εν τω χριστω παντες ζωοποιηθησονται.” Paul is not meandering around Adam just to talk about grace. Nor is he suggesting a weak, semi-Pelagian link between Adam’s sin and the sin of humanity. He is supposing that when Adam sinned, humanity lost something central to its ideal self, becoming degraded, and corrupt. Because of Adam humans are inferior race in every way. In a lecture on Philippians Wright referenced Genesis 5.3 in a discussion of how Adam had degraded humanity, "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth".
Neither hereditary identity nor corporate punishment sit well with the Western mind. They violate the assumption of a Blank Slate. They offend Western individualism. Son notes, however, that these concepts are common place in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, an individual often represents a community. The family can be punished for the actions of the father. The nation can be punished for the sins of a king. Son continues:
In other words, they are the head person with whom their respective group is identified. Because of this real, dynamic unity between the two, the act of a head person often affects all those who belong to him.
The identity of a people can spread across time forward to his descendants, and also backward to his ancestors. Adam and Christ are not just great historical figures; they are corporate beings that subsume humanity. Adam subsumes the old humanity. Christ subsumes the new. Adam subsumes those who were faithless toward God. Christ subsumes the faithful So, “Adam’s act was determinative for all men who belonged to him,” just as “Christ’s act determines the destiny of all who belong to him.” Dunn is understating the problem when he says that Adam’s sin is indirectly related to the rest of humanities sin.
For Paul, the predisposition to sin resides in the flesh. The flesh was inherited from Adam who lost the Image of God when he sinned, and passed his new image onto his descendents. Sinfulness is part of the flesh. That does mean that humans are totally depraved, only that they are given over, as a race to sinfulness. The Image of God is marred to the point that it cannot be repaired without outside intervention. No person can rightfully boast in his or her flesh. No nationality can rightfully boast in its achievements.
This argument accomplishes the first part of Paul’s agenda for Jews and gentiles. As he said of Abraham, those who receive grace as a gift have no reason to hold themselves above others with a boast about their relationship to God (Rom. 4:2). Paul’s claim that human sinfulness and degradation are associated with creation places all people in the same place before God. Human identity through Adam is humiliation. Human nationality is irrelevant. The cultural baggage of the audience, whatever aisle the divided groups sit in, becomes weightless. Dividing because of supposed cultural or moral superiority makes as much sense as thugs excommunicating criminals on moral grounds.
There should be little doubt, since Paul is discussing identity in terms of humanity, or more specifically the two humanities, that Paul is using Adam for more than just his historical significant. Adam is the historical man who brought sin into the world. Adam is also anthropos or its Hebrew equivalent. Paul uses Adam to denote the idea of humanity. The first humanity is degraded and hopeless. The Christians in Rome are ready to place their identity in a new humanity.
According to Paul, Jesus is the second Adam. He is ideal human; the one who fulfills is the realization of the true humanity. Dunn says that Jesus did what Adam should have done. His obedience reversed the affects of Adam’s disobedience (5:19). He is the Messiah; the who restores what Adam lost. Whereas Adam brought sin and death, Christ brings righteousness and life (Rom. 5:12-21). Whereas those who were in Adam were naturally given over “to greater and greater iniquity” those who are in Christ are naturally given over to sanctification (6:19).
Jesus did more than reverse the consequences of Adam’s sin. Jesus act was greater than Adam’s act.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15-17)
Wright says that even though “Christ did not begin where Adam began, he began where Adam ended,” he gained for us more than what we had originally lost.
This paradigm seems to be one of Paul’s dominant ways of interpreting the Christ-Event. It is found in other places in Paul’s letters. 1 Corinthians has already been mentioned. Barrett notices that in Philippians 2:5-11 Christ regains dominion over creation, which Adam had lost. Jesus showed no anxiety about being God, while Adam did. Paul’s associate Luke goes out of his way to make a connection between Adam and Jesus. In his genealogy he intentionally uses the phrase “son of God” when discussing Jesus and Adam (Luke 1:32, 35: 3:38). Dunn writes, “Adam plays a larger role in Paul’s theology than is usually realized—and even when that role is taken into account it is often misunderstood. Adam is a key figure in Paul’s attempt to express his understanding both of Christ and of man.” Dunn is correct. It is only due to a focus on particular theological issues that most theologians have not noticed that Paul’s assumptions about the relationship between Adam and Christ are what drives three of Paul’s most useful books concerning doctrine. At least, in Romans and Philippians, the Adam-Christ parallels work as the hinge of Paul’s argument. This is not to say that it is Paul’s only paradigm, but it is definitely a working assumption even when Paul does not reference Adam or creation.
Scholars who are skeptical about whether Paul is working with this paradigm should peruse the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Irenaeus says that the Ebionites remained in the “Adam who was conquered and driven out of paradise,” rather than the second because they did not believe there was anything significantly different about his humanity. Several of the Fathers, including Origen taught that the resurrection body would exist in a form superior to the current human body.
And why would it not be one of Paul’s major paradigms for understanding the Gospel? This act of Jesus ushers in a new era. All of humanity, even history itself is placed in categories based on this event. Even our calendar testifies to this. The Christ-Event does nothing less than inaugurate a new race of humanity.
To understand this, one must understand something of the Jewish worldview. At the turn of the age the Jews were eschatological dualists. They believed in two separate ages. One in which they waited for God to act and another in which God acted to right the wrongs of humanity and rescue the people of God. Paul was no exception. Paul, working within the assumption, believes that God has finally acted through Jesus. The end of the age has come.
While the age has turned, its full effect cannot be seen. The Gospel has broken in. Creation wait is waiting for Christ to return to consummate the age. Nevertheless, “the redemptive work of God is progressing towards the full realization of the Kingdom of God.” The Gospel is spreading across the earth to every nation and people (Matt. 24:14). The powers that be try to thwart it, but God laughs from his thrown (Acts 4:25-26). Currently, the two humanities and consequently the two ages live alongside each other. Some, like the Ebionite, remain in the first Adam, while others have crossed over to side with the second.
For Paul, Christianity is not just a new religion. It is not intelligible to speak of the Christ-Event in such small terms. There was one humanity, and now another it emerging. Christianity, as Paul understands it, is a new and better way to be human. Paul is arguing that the very anthropology of humanity is changing. homo sapien is dead, homo christus is alive. For those who have crossed over into Christ, “the same formal relationship that once bound us to Adam, now binds us to Christ.”
Paul has used his eschatology and the Adam-Christ dichotomy to place the cultural allegiances of the Christians in Rome, whether Jew or gentile, in perspective. Paul makes it clear that those allegiances are worthless compared to association with Christ. Paul says as much about his own cultural trappings in Philippians 3.7. His audience is faced with a choice. They may choose either to continue in the old humanity, or to be a part of the new. The choice is a no brainier.
New Humanity and the Problem of Sin
The new humanity is free from the condemnation that comes as a consequence of sin. In fact, God’s grace has proved to be greater in our sin, than it was originally, because the act of God to rescue humanity was more gracious than God’s act to create humanity in the first place. So the question arises, “Should we continue to sin so that grace should abound (Rom. 6.2)?” Paul answers with an emphatic no.
How can we who died to sin go on living in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6.2b-3).
Paul appeals to their identification with Christ in their new humanity as a reason to avoid sin, and perhaps a reason, that they are not able to continue living in sin. Paul assumes that their connection to Christ, in their new humanity, makes it unthinkable that they would continue to live like the old Adam. The fact that they live in Christ, who lived a certain way, and continues to live a certain way necessitates that they also live a certain way.
Several New Testament texts both in and out of the Pauline corpus reflect this idea. In Philippians 2:5 Paul tells the Philippians to have the same mind as Christ. While Johannine literature is sparse on moral invectives it shares with Pauline theology the strong connection between identity and moral action Christ and the body of believers. 1 John 1:6 is one example. John 13:13-15 is another.
This ethical formula is somewhat foreign to most contemporary readers. The idea, simply put is the being determines doing. How a person, or an object for that matter, behaves is intricately related to what that person or object is. Those people who were members of the old humanity necessarily acted like members of the first humanity in much the same way that rabbits act like rabbits. Members of the second humanity, who have died to the first humanity by their identification with Christ in baptism should not, by nature, act like members of the first humanity. When a person acts in ways contrary to human nature the person is deemed insane. For a member of the new humanity to act like a member of the old is akin to my acting like a glass of orange juice.
Paul is not saying that Christians will never sin. There is a difference, in Paul’s mind between sin as a force and sin as an action. The two are related. An action made the force a power over humanity, and the force manifests itself in human actions. The freedom from sin is a gradual release from its grip. Whereas the people under the first Adam were given over to ever increasing wickedness, those in Christ are given over to ever increasing righteousness.
19 I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. (Rom. 6:19)
The debate over eternal security would be much less enticing if Paul’s argument here were better understood. The issue is not whether a person has committed one sin, or several, but as 1 John 1:6 says, whether one is walking in the light as “he is in the light.” Or as Paul says again,
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he will also deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful —
for he cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:11b-13).
Sin and righteousness flow from identity, as do their respective rewards.
Paul continues his argument about freedom from sin in chapter seven. While since Luther, theologians have read Romans 7:14-25 as autobiographical. This view was denied by the early church father and has been largely discarded since Kummel. Paul is not a divided man, nor does he think expect that Christians should be. If he did, both his argument preceding 7:14-25 and his celebration, which follows, would be incoherent.
The eschatological moral vision in Romans serves to replace the cultural trappings of either Jew or gentile. Christ is their new identity. Righteousness is their new cultural expression. Everything outside of this is secondary.
In 9-11, Paul takes time both to explain why many of his people, the Jews have not joined the new humanity, and why gentiles do not have to obey Torah. His main point as far as the community is concerned is that gentiles do not have to obey Torah, yet are full members of the community. They must, however, not get prideful about their new position, because if many Jews have lost their opportunity due to hardness of heart, gentiles can suffer the same fate (Rom. 11:17-24). Paul waited to address their division head on until after he had destroyed the pretense of their cultural division, and formed a new identity as the basis of unity.
The eschatological vision of morality in Romans 12-15 grows out of Paul’s argument in 1-11, especially the discussion on about the new humanity. It is a prescription for the ethics of the new humanity, which no longer identifies with the age of the first Adam (12:2). Its members treat each other well in spite of cultural differences. The weak and the strong alike are important members of the community.
It is only after Paul has finished his argument for unity through new humanity in Christ that he turns again to appeal for aid in his missionary journey to Spain (15:22). It is not an accident. Not only has Paul, hopefully, eased the tension between the divided Christian sects in Rome, he has also set up the basis for evangelism—spreading the news about the new humanity.
Conclusion
The message of Romans parallels the issues in the Churches of Christ. Like the Christians in Rome, we are divided along cultural and doctrinal boarders. Our white churches do not associate with our black churches, which in turn do not associate with our Hispanic churches and so on. Our elderly do not understand our youth. Our “progressive” churches do not associate with our “conservative” churches.
Often the differences concern worship preferences. What ethnicity or age group should our hymnody reflect? How should people dress when they meet for worship? Sometimes they run deeper. What is the role of women in the church? Should we use instruments or sing acapella? How much fellowship with other Christian sects?
Paul’s vision of a new humanity should change the way we look at each other. We are not Americans or Mexicans. We are not white or black. We are not young or old. It is not that these realities should be ignored. They do affect the way we think. But if we are Christians, they are not the source of our identity. Christ defines us. Not our style of music, not our clothing, not even our doctrinal opinions du jour. Christianity is bigger than religion. It is a movement. It is an anthropology.
Doctrinal discussions are important, but they must be put in perspective. When we excommunicate or ignore persons or sects within our new humanity for anything less than their stubborn resolution to malign this new humanity or its foundations, we are undermining the wonder of this new humanity. There must be a certain amount of tolerance that comes not from a secular vision of pluralism, but from our vision of unity in Christ. Christ has welcomed people who do not look or think like us, we must welcome them also. Welcoming is active, not passive.
This principle extends beyond our polity, but our polity would be a good place for us to start. We must break down the divisions among our churches. We must step outside our comfortable services and meet with others on their own terms. We must refuse the market driven mentality of organizing worship around generation and cultural sub-categories. We must do the best to get along as much as it is dependent upon us (Rom. 12:18). We are not a religion with a culture that needs endless apologies. We must stop thinking like one.
New humanity provides a powerful foundation for missionary work. There is a reason to evangelize. Many humans are completely unaware of the opportunity they have to be free from the power of sin and death. Personally and communally they are part of a downward spiral filled with backbiting and boasting. They use and degrade each other and themselves. Their families are a mess. Their work is a joke. The whole world is caught up in injustice. Every secular ideology that promises liberty leads to other forms of injustice. Communism and capitalism are different routes to the same end. All that is left to do is enjoy our demise.
Many are so given over to this way of life that they are not even aware that there is another way. We have the new and better way to be human. This is more exciting than our technology which, exciting though it is, will always only empower people to do more of what they did without it—which is why since at least George Orwell, people have been telling stories like 1984, Brave New World and whatever Michael Crichton book was published most recently.
What makes this message even more exciting than the message of the past, is the promise that, at least to some extent, we can live this way. We can, even now, experience freedom from the power of sin. This is not only going to change the way we do missions, it will change the way we do catechesis. This is a foundation above which old architecture may remain standing strong for centuries to come, and to which several new stories may be added, so that our story may continue.
Works Cited
Barrett, C.K. From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology, Charles Scribner’s Son’s: New York, 1962.
Barth, Karl. Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5, (Translated by T.A. Smail), New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956.
Carter, T.L. Paul and the Power of Sin: Redefining ‘Beyond the Pale,’ Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002.
Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8, vol. 38a, editors Hummard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker, Word Books: Dallas, 1988.
Gieniusz, Andrzej, Romans 8:18-30 “Suffering does Not Thwart the Future Glory,” Scholars Press for the University of South Florida: Atlanta, 1999.
Hays, Richard B. “Adam, Israel, Christ,” Pauline Theology: Volume III Romans, edited by, Hay, David and E. Elizabeth Johnson.
Horne, Mark. N.T. Wright on The Atonement, 2003, Cited on line. 20 November 2005.
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/n_t_wright_on_the_atonement.htm.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book V, Translated by Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson. Cited on line 23 November 2005, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, revised ed. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1999.
Kaylor, R. David. Paul’s Covenant Community: Jew & Gentile in Romans, John Atlanta: Knox, 1988.
Lampe, Peter. “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” Pages 216-230 in The Romans Debate, edited by Karl Donfriend, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson 1991.
Mounce, Robert H. The New American Commentary: Romans vol. 27, Broadman & Holman, 1995.
Myers, Charles D. “Romans,” Pages 815-829 in Volume 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday/ ABD, 1992.
Pate, Marvin. The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
Sinclair, Scott. Jesus Christ According to Paul: The Christologies of Paul’s Undisputed Epistles and The Christologies of Paul, Berkley: Bibal Press, 1988.
Simmons, Bill. “A New Look at an Old Christology,” Theological Educator, Vol. Is. 32, 1985. (93-107).
Son, Sang-Won (Aaron). Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A study of selected terms, idioms, and concepts in the light of Paul’s usage and background, Roma: E.P.I.B., 2001.
Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Thompson, James W. Pastoral Theology: Romans (ch. 4), unpublished.
Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in it’s Contexts: The Argument of Romans, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2004.
Wedderburn, A.J.M. The Reasons for Romans, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
“Resurrection of the Dead.” Pages 559-564 in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Edited by David Bercott. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1998.
Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph, Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press,1994.
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and The People of God, vol. 1, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992.
Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
You do not have to read this. You probably shouldn’t. I’m just thinking that If I can’t make it as a scholar, I’ll try my hand at the ardous labor of a humor columnist.
Humor Piece
The Applied Theology of Romans 5:12-21
As a trained theologian, I find it difficult to ruminate on any passage of scripture without considering is many contemporary and personal applications (this has more to do with narcissism than with anything one might call training).
During my studies on Romans this semester I had several occasions to apply second Adam theology, however abstract my application, to my personal life. One particular incidence, which I will now related, is particularly striking in its parallels to second Adam theology; although not in any way that might accurately be called theology.
I should begin this story by telling you that I had a laptop. It was not the most beautiful laptop in the world. Actually, it was rather ugly as far as laptops go. Okay. If this laptop were a person, I would not have wanted to be seen in public with it. In any case the laptop did do a great many tasks for me. It carried e-books, Bibles, and plenty of online-reading around for me. I typed notes from class in it, and it never asked for anything in return.
Now, one day as I was sitting in class, waiting for others to arrive, my laptop became unplugged. Since the battery to this dinosaur had died long before it had ever been passed on to me, this meant that the computer turned off. Thinking nothing of this, because it happened all the time (it is a good thing my AC adapter were not some unborn child’s umbilical cord) I simply jiggled my power adapter around a bit and pressed the power button. I waited for a few minutes, as was my custom, and to my chagrin my computer did nothing. It did a whole lot of thing. I practiced this ritual repeatedly hoping that the spirits lurking within might have mercy on me, but with no luck at all. My classmates looked on with sympathy. “Did you back up your files?” “No.” I wanted to hide my stupidity. “How could this guy be so stupid?” I could see them thinking.
So, a couple days later, I took my computer to the store. The nerds behind tried to charge me $200.00 with no guarantee of anything other than my wallet being thinner. “Have you tried to turn it on?” “We’ll of course I have, how would I know it’s not working unless I tried to turn it on.” “Then there’s no guarantee that we can extract your files.” So it was back to the old drawing board. I had lost everything—every note, every file, every paper. It was all gone.
When the news came, I ordered another computer immediately. It came within the week. I opened it. It was glorious. I was not shy about being seen with this beauty in public. This laptop was so precious, that classmates strode across the room to touch it. “How old is it?” They would ask. They leaned in, peering at its screen with happy eyes. It was at though they thought I’d delivered a baby.
In any case, this event got me thinking. My first laptop was a lot like the first Adam. It basically did what it was supposed to for a while, and then it failed. Upon it’s failure it became a fragment of it’s former self. Once practically a living being, now plastic and parts that sit in the trunk of my car—until my wife gets me to move it. The failure of my computer meant that for the rest of the semester, I would survive by the sweat of my brow. There was simply no way for me to escape the curse.
When I received my new computer, I was not quite certain that the curse had passed. It was exciting. The thing practically performed miracles. But could it help me catch up after all I’d lost? And in the last two weeks of school? I doubted it. But each day that I walked with the second laptop, I felt myself better and better adapted to accomplish the goal. I was practically experiencing a process of sanctification. My darkness was fading. I stand as a firm believer in this second computer. It’s wireless. It’s battery. It’s fast processor and all the other powers it has that my other computer only dreamed about. Technologically speaking, I have joined a new humanity.